In most state, someone riding a bike on the highway and being hit by a car would be considered death by natural causes. To wit, if you're on a highway and not in a vehicle, naturally you're going to be run over. There's even minimum speed limits around 45 mph in 55 zones and higher in 65 and 70.

In most state, someone riding a bike on the highway and being hit by a car would be considered death by natural causes. To wit, if you're on a highway and not in a vehicle, naturally you're going to be run over. There's even minimum speed limits around 45 mph in 55 zones and higher in 65 and 70.

I looked into it a little. The sleeping driver hit the biker head-on so speed difference wasn't a factor. Here's the approximate spot of the crash. I probably wouldnt bike on it(i'm a frady cat from a bad wreck), but that's a pretty wide open highway with an ample safety lane. Here in Indiana, "highways" are often glorified county roads with middle-striping so we see cyclists using them often in nice weather. Freeways and interstates have signs prohibiting non-motorized vehicles. *shrug*

I feel racist because as soon as I saw the name of the driver in the article I thought "that explains everything".

And admittedly it is bigoted of me to think that, but FFS can't Kumar just take some responsibility and own up to driving like they were from some 3rd world shiathole?

India is still 3rd world, right? Sure, they've got a space program and nukes, but they still shiat all over the place.

I saw a piece on the news about some poor people in India who made their living by cleaning out literal shiat holes of other people. It's actually illegal, but can't be enforced everywhere because some people don't have indoor plumbing (or even outdoor plumbing) and some other people have no other way to make a living.

It was a feel-good news piece. The woman they followed around picking up other people's feces is now learning how to cook. They showed her with a basket full of shiat balanced atop her head at the beginning of the segment and by the end she was making bread with her bare hands.

According to the initial CHP report on the crash, Jain bought the car new about 10 days before the crash. He told officers that the car had a strong, new-car smell that prompted him to use a baking soda car freshener in it. Jain told authorities that the smell caused him to fall asleep and there were no mechanical problems with the car...

So he was knowingly driving under the influence. That's murder in California if death results.

gfid:I feel racist because as soon as I saw the name of the driver in the article I thought "that explains everything".

And admittedly it is bigoted of me to think that, but FFS can't Kumar just take some responsibility and own up to driving like they were from some 3rd world shiathole?

India is still 3rd world, right? Sure, they've got a space program and nukes, but they still shiat all over the place.

I saw a piece on the news about some poor people in India who made their living by cleaning out literal shiat holes of other people. It's actually illegal, but can't be enforced everywhere because some people don't have indoor plumbing (or even outdoor plumbing) and some other people have no other way to make a living.

It was a feel-good news piece. The woman they followed around picking up other people's feces is now learning how to cook. They showed her with a basket full of shiat balanced atop her head at the beginning of the segment and by the end she was making bread with her bare hands.

Think about that next time you go for a meal in India.

I didn't go quite this deep with my thoughts but I did think to myself "if the guy can tolerate the smell of curry then his defense is bullshiat"

gfid:I feel racist because as soon as I saw the name of the driver in the article I thought "that explains everything".

And admittedly it is bigoted of me to think that, but FFS can't Kumar just take some responsibility and own up to driving like they were from some 3rd world shiathole?

India is still 3rd world, right? Sure, they've got a space program and nukes, but they still shiat all over the place.

I saw a piece on the news about some poor people in India who made their living by cleaning out literal shiat holes of other people. It's actually illegal, but can't be enforced everywhere because some people don't have indoor plumbing (or even outdoor plumbing) and some other people have no other way to make a living.

It was a feel-good news piece. The woman they followed around picking up other people's feces is now learning how to cook. They showed her with a basket full of shiat balanced atop her head at the beginning of the segment and by the end she was making bread with her bare hands.

Think about that next time you go for a meal in India.

But at least you feel racist for thinking this, so that makes it all ok.

gfid:I feel racist because as soon as I saw the name of the driver in the article I thought "that explains everything".

And admittedly it is bigoted of me to think that, but FFS can't Kumar just take some responsibility and own up to driving like they were from some 3rd world shiathole?

India is still 3rd world, right? Sure, they've got a space program and nukes, but they still shiat all over the place.

I saw a piece on the news about some poor people in India who made their living by cleaning out literal shiat holes of other people. It's actually illegal, but can't be enforced everywhere because some people don't have indoor plumbing (or even outdoor plumbing) and some other people have no other way to make a living.

It was a feel-good news piece. The woman they followed around picking up other people's feces is now learning how to cook. They showed her with a basket full of shiat balanced atop her head at the beginning of the segment and by the end she was making bread with her bare hands.

Think about that next time you go for a meal in India.

It they aren't part of NATO (first world) and they aren't part of the communist bloc (USSR, China, Cuba; second world), then they're third world. That is the definition of the term.

In most state, someone riding a bike on the highway and being hit by a car would be considered death by natural causes. To wit, if you're on a highway and not in a vehicle, naturally you're going to be run over. There's even minimum speed limits around 45 mph in 55 zones and higher in 65 and 70.

I looked into it a little. The sleeping driver hit the biker head-on so speed difference wasn't a factor. Here's the approximate spot of the crash. I probably wouldnt bike on it(i'm a frady cat from a bad wreck), but that's a pretty wide open highway with an ample safety lane. Here in Indiana, "highways" are often glorified county roads with middle-striping so we see cyclists using them often in nice weather. Freeways and interstates have signs prohibiting non-motorized vehicles.*shrug*

As the first Santa Cruz native in this thread, apparently, I will tell you that you are unequivocally incorrect in this matter. It happens that the area of highway referenced is the only road out of town in that direction, and thus if the cyclist lived out that way, it would have been that, or highway 9 with a more dangerous, extremely challenging to bicycle 10 mile extra drive (and some likely time on Hwy 1 anyway) or highway 17 with a more dangerous, extremely challenging to bicycle extra drive (and time on highways 9 and 1) or Graham Hill Road with a more dangerous, extremely challenging to bicycle extra drive (which is a six-mile thirty degree uphill slope, and additional time on Highways 9 and 1). Highway 1 in Santa Cruz and north of Santa Cruz is, in fact, a normal road in Santa Cruz and, again, the ONLY road to get out of Santa Cruz going north, without taking a ludicrous, dangerous detour if you are on a bike.

Just a heads-up. I think it's insane to be even hinting at blaming the bicyclist killed by this idiot, but maybe I'm just crazy that way.

kitsuneymg:gfid: I feel racist because as soon as I saw the name of the driver in the article I thought "that explains everything".

And admittedly it is bigoted of me to think that, but FFS can't Kumar just take some responsibility and own up to driving like they were from some 3rd world shiathole?

India is still 3rd world, right? Sure, they've got a space program and nukes, but they still shiat all over the place.

I saw a piece on the news about some poor people in India who made their living by cleaning out literal shiat holes of other people. It's actually illegal, but can't be enforced everywhere because some people don't have indoor plumbing (or even outdoor plumbing) and some other people have no other way to make a living.

It was a feel-good news piece. The woman they followed around picking up other people's feces is now learning how to cook. They showed her with a basket full of shiat balanced atop her head at the beginning of the segment and by the end she was making bread with her bare hands.

Think about that next time you go for a meal in India.

It they aren't part of NATO (first world) and they aren't part of the communist bloc (USSR, China, Cuba; second world), then they're third world. That is the definition of the term.

In most state, someone riding a bike on the highway and being hit by a car would be considered death by natural causes. To wit, if you're on a highway and not in a vehicle, naturally you're going to be run over. There's even minimum speed limits around 45 mph in 55 zones and higher in 65 and 70.

I looked into it a little. The sleeping driver hit the biker head-on so speed difference wasn't a factor. Here's the approximate spot of the crash. I probably wouldnt bike on it(i'm a frady cat from a bad wreck), but that's a pretty wide open highway with an ample safety lane. Here in Indiana, "highways" are often glorified county roads with middle-striping so we see cyclists using them often in nice weather. Freeways and interstates have signs prohibiting non-motorized vehicles.*shrug*

As the first Santa Cruz native in this thread, apparently, I will tell you that you are unequivocally incorrect in this matter. It happens that the area of highway referenced is the only road out of town in that direction, and thus if the cyclist lived out that way, it would have been that, or highway 9 with a more dangerous, extremely challenging to bicycle 10 mile extra drive (and some likely time on Hwy 1 anyway) or highway 17 with a more dangerous, extremely challenging to bicycle extra drive (and time on highways 9 and 1) or Graham Hill Road with a more dangerous, extremely challenging to bicycle extra drive (which is a six-mile thirty degree uphill slope, and additional time on Highways 9 and 1). Highway 1 in Santa Cruz and north of Santa Cruz is, in fact, a normal road in Santa Cruz and, again, the ONLY road to get out of Santa Cruz going north, without taking a ludicrous, dangerous detour if you are on a bike.

Just a heads-up. I think it's insane to be even hinting at blaming the bicyclist killed by this idiot, but maybe I'm just crazy that way.

So as Leishu stated above it's the only road north out of town. It's also a world wide destination spot for cycle touring. It's an encouraged and specially marked place to ride. The driver should be punished harshly and never permitted to operate a motor vehicle again.

In most state, someone riding a bike on the highway and being hit by a car would be considered death by natural causes. To wit, if you're on a highway and not in a vehicle, naturally you're going to be run over. There's even minimum speed limits around 45 mph in 55 zones and higher in 65 and 70.

I looked into it a little. The sleeping driver hit the biker head-on so speed difference wasn't a factor. Here's the approximate spot of the crash. I probably wouldnt bike on it(i'm a frady cat from a bad wreck), but that's a pretty wide open highway with an ample safety lane. Here in Indiana, "highways" are often glorified county roads with middle-striping so we see cyclists using them often in nice weather. Freeways and interstates have signs prohibiting non-motorized vehicles.*shrug*

As the first Santa Cruz native in this thread, apparently, I will tell you that you are unequivocally incorrect in this matter. It happens that the area of highway referenced is the only road out of town in that direction, and thus if the cyclist lived out that way, it would have been that, or highway 9 with a more dangerous, extremely challenging to bicycle 10 mile extra drive (and some likely time on Hwy 1 anyway) or highway 17 with a more dangerous, extremely challenging to bicycle extra drive (and time on highways 9 and 1) or Graham Hill Road with a more dangerous, extremely challenging to bicycle extra drive (which is a six-mile thirty degree uphill slope, and additional time on Highways 9 and 1). Highway 1 in Santa Cruz and north of Santa Cruz is, in fact, a normal road in Santa Cruz and, again, the ONLY road to get out of Santa Cruz going north, without taking a ludicrous, dangerous detour if you are on a bike.

Just a heads-up. I think it's insane to be even hinting at blaming the bicyclist killed by this idiot, but maybe I'm just crazy that way.

So, the only win is not to play.

that rings a bell

Well, Dugitman was mostly correct, despite my incorrect criticism of him. Highway 1 is, in Santa Cruz and North of it, more or less safe. It's amply wide enough to handle its traffic and bicycles. South of Santa Cruz, bikes are not allowed coontil the edge of the county, whereat it becomes another sole exit).

I really should have been correcting doglover, but regardless my tone was unmerited.

Vespizzari:So as Leishu stated above it's the only road north out of town. It's also a world wide destination spot for cycle touring. It's an encouraged and specially marked place to ride. The driver should be punished harshly and never permitted to operate a motor vehicle again.

Yeah. Every time someone calls Highway 1 in the North County unsafe for bicycling I think of the packs of cyclist who dare Highway 9 and simply shake my head. Highway 1 may look bad to flatlanders, but in reality it's by far the safest route out of town, especially now that Devil's Slide has been cut off.

Vespizzari:So as Leishu stated above it's the only road north out of town. It's also a world wide destination spot for cycle touring. It's an encouraged and specially marked place to ride. The driver should be punished harshly and never permitted to operate a motor vehicle again.

Well, of course, but he is "too rich to jail".So, stick to pleasantries.

snocone:Vespizzari: So as Leishu stated above it's the only road north out of town. It's also a world wide destination spot for cycle touring. It's an encouraged and specially marked place to ride. The driver should be punished harshly and never permitted to operate a motor vehicle again.

Well, of course, but he is "too rich to jail".So, stick to pleasantries.

/just hoping I live long enough to see the American War on Rich.

For what it's worth, Santa Cruz is as likely a place for the first shot to be fired as any.

In most state, someone riding a bike on the highway and being hit by a car would be considered death by natural causes. To wit, if you're on a highway and not in a vehicle, naturally you're going to be run over. There's even minimum speed limits around 45 mph in 55 zones and higher in 65 and 70.

Fortunately, we don't have to guess about "most states": we already know it's California.

This requires attention to "most", and also the distinction between "highway" and "freeway". (Freeways and expressways are generally the subset of highways that are controlled access, typically meaning grade separation and on/off ramps.)

"Q. Can I ride my bicycle on the freeway?A. Of the more than 4,000 miles of freeways in California, about 1,000 miles are open to bicyclists. These open sections are usually in rural areas where there is no alternate route. California Vehicle Code Section 21960 says Caltrans and local agencies may prohibit bicyclists from traveling on freeways under their jurisdiction and that they must erect signs stating the prohibition. There are no signs permitting bicyclists on freeways. When a bicyclist is legally traveling on a freeway, he/she may be directed off the freeway at the next off-ramp by a sign that says "Bicycles Must Exit." The freeway will be posted at the next on-ramp with a sign that says "Bicycles Prohibited."-- http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/faq/faq67.htm

I know there are settings that you can change to make the re-gen braking less intrusive. However, my understanding is that whatever the setting you still can't drive it like a normal vehicle, as as soon as you release the gas pedal it brakes pretty hard. Now, perhaps his driving is different than mine, but if I were to fall asleep at the wheel, I should think my foot would relax and cause me to put less pressure on the pedal, eventually releasing it all together.

I wonder if he didn't just lose control of the vehicle, being a jackass, instead of falling asleep.

OK, some more, in the living room with a nice view, cool, clear water, and a nice fan

For some people, bicycling is a mode of transportation.

Make you own bed and take a nap.We are not talking "transportation" here.

Idiotic jibes aside, how do you figure? I may have missed that part of the article, but it doesn't seem to indicate either way. Though, since the date was a Saturday I suppose it's likely.

(I still prefer the real thing to stationary. The latter just never felt, well, purposeful to me)

And, of course, that just makes you another ass who's blaming the guy who got hit by an idiot who was falling asleep while driving (quite irresponsibly).

Keep yer ass to yourself and maybe reread.I ride a bike for recreation, used to for transportation, and cars are the enemy.Mixing it up on a mountainous highway confused for a touring path is less that prudent.Bikers in traffic have the right to die all day long. Exercise something else.

OK, some more, in the living room with a nice view, cool, clear water, and a nice fan

For some people, bicycling is a mode of transportation.

Make you own bed and take a nap.We are not talking "transportation" here.

Idiotic jibes aside, how do you figure? I may have missed that part of the article, but it doesn't seem to indicate either way. Though, since the date was a Saturday I suppose it's likely.

(I still prefer the real thing to stationary. The latter just never felt, well, purposeful to me)

And, of course, that just makes you another ass who's blaming the guy who got hit by an idiot who was falling asleep while driving (quite irresponsibly).

Keep yer ass to yourself and maybe reread.I ride a bike for recreation, used to for transportation, and cars are the enemy.Mixing it up on a mountainous highway confused for a touring path is less that prudent.Bikers in traffic have the right to die all day long. Exercise something else.

In order:Reread what?Highway 1 in that area is coastal plains, mild hills, and wetlands, not mountains. Are you not reading the other posts in this thread or the conveniently linked picture of the area?You're an ass.

OK, some more, in the living room with a nice view, cool, clear water, and a nice fan

For some people, bicycling is a mode of transportation.

Make you own bed and take a nap.We are not talking "transportation" here.

Idiotic jibes aside, how do you figure? I may have missed that part of the article, but it doesn't seem to indicate either way. Though, since the date was a Saturday I suppose it's likely.

(I still prefer the real thing to stationary. The latter just never felt, well, purposeful to me)

And, of course, that just makes you another ass who's blaming the guy who got hit by an idiot who was falling asleep while driving (quite irresponsibly).

Keep yer ass to yourself and maybe reread.I ride a bike for recreation, used to for transportation, and cars are the enemy.Mixing it up on a mountainous highway confused for a touring path is less that prudent.Bikers in traffic have the right to die all day long. Exercise something else.

In order:Reread what?Highway 1 in that area is coastal plains, mild hills, and wetlands, not mountains. Are you not reading the other posts in this thread or the conveniently linked picture of the area?You're an ass.

A couple years ago the Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts had a high speed late night wreck. He claimed to have fallen asleep while driving with his foot on the gas. The papers interviewed an accident reconstruction expert who says drivers who fall asleep don't floor it. They let up on the gas and coast.

The most favorable interpretation is he was driving half awake, slid on ice, and hit the gas instead of the brake. Alternative explanations are DUI (standard reason why a single vehicle flies off the road at 100 mph late at night) or suicide attempt (he just learned he had a decent chance of going to prison for campaign finance violations).

I wish there had been video of the crash. 100 mph, airborne, end over end, slamming into a rock wall, and the driver who wasn't wearing a selt belt walks away.

OK, some more, in the living room with a nice view, cool, clear water, and a nice fan

For some people, bicycling is a mode of transportation.

Make you own bed and take a nap.We are not talking "transportation" here.

Idiotic jibes aside, how do you figure? I may have missed that part of the article, but it doesn't seem to indicate either way. Though, since the date was a Saturday I suppose it's likely.

(I still prefer the real thing to stationary. The latter just never felt, well, purposeful to me)

And, of course, that just makes you another ass who's blaming the guy who got hit by an idiot who was falling asleep while driving (quite irresponsibly).

Keep yer ass to yourself and maybe reread.I ride a bike for recreation, used to for transportation, and cars are the enemy.Mixing it up on a mountainous highway confused for a touring path is less that prudent.Bikers in traffic have the right to die all day long. Exercise something else.

In order:Reread what?Highway 1 in that area is coastal plains, mild hills, and wetlands, not mountains. Are you not reading the other posts in this thread or the conveniently linked picture of the area?You're an ass.

Why do you love butts?

... riiight. I can use another pejorative if you prefer, but as your commentary was particularly asinine, it seemed to fit.